1. Complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging offences under Sections 376, 386, and 511 IPC, with the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 354 IPC. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 152
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Gopal Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11852 of 2024]
Decided On : 15-01-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Raja Choudhary, Rajesh Singh Chauhan
For the Respondents: Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Rebecca Mishra, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Rajendra Kumar Singh, Parth Sarathi, Sanjay Kumar Visen
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Raja Choudhary, Rajesh Singh Chauhan
For the Respondents: Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Rebecca Mishra, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Rajendra Kumar Singh, Parth Sarathi, Sanjay Kumar Visen
The court granted bail in anticipation of arrest, emphasizing that such a decision does not reflect on the merits of the case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 386, 511, and 354 - Bail in anticipation of arrest - The High Court rejected the appellant's bail prayer, but the Supreme Court found sufficient grounds to grant bail, setting aside the High Court's order. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Observations - The court clarified that the bail granted does not imply any findings on the merits of the case and emphasized the necessity for the appellant to participate diligently in the trial. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought bail in anticipation of arrest following a complaint alleging serious offences, with the Magistrate taking cognizance under a lesser charge.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the appellant should be granted bail in anticipation of arrest, setting aside the High Court's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail in anticipation of arrest based on the allegations made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstances warranted bail, emphasizing that the grant does not reflect on the merits of the case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought anticipatory bail following the High Court's rejection of the prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that the appellant may be enlarged on bail in anticipation of arrest given the nature of the offence taken cognizance of. (Para 5 )
4. The grant of anticipatory bail may be determined by the specific offence for which the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions fixed by the trial court. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. Does the specific section under which a Magistrate takes cognizance affect the grant of anticipatory bail?
Yes, the court considered the fact that the Magistrate took cognizance under Section 354 IPC, rather than the more severe sections alleged in the complaint, as a basis for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does the grant of anticipatory bail imply a finding on the merits of the case?
No, the court clarified that the grant of bail in anticipation of arrest shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. (Para 9 )
8. What conditions can be imposed when granting anticipatory bail?
The court may impose conditions such as prohibiting the accused from dissuading witnesses through inducement or threats and requiring diligent participation in the trial. (Para 8 , 10 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th July, 2024 has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest.
3. We have heard Mr. Raja Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1-State of Bihar as well as Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-complainant.
4. It appears that the respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging offences committed by the appellant punishable under Sections 376, 386 and 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860.1 [IPC] However, the said Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 354, IPC.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid development, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant may be enlarged on bail in anticipation of arrest.
6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
8. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court.
9. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail to the appellant in anticipation of arrest will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
10. The appellant shall, however, diligently participate in the trial and shall not absent himself without just cause.
11. The appeal is, thus, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
